To what extent was it possible to reconcile Darwinism and Christianity in the late Nineteenth Century?

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

The ‘crisis of faith’ that the latter part of the Victorian period witnessed can be attributed to a pivotal moment where mans conception of his own existence, belief in God and his relationship with Nature were questioned and then completely transformed. This theological upheaval has been widely attributed to a single individual, Charles Darwin and his works ‘The Origin of Species’ 1859 and ‘The Descent of Man 1871. Although to a large extent, choosing not to mention mankind, “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history” (O.of .species p-458), being the only direct references, it was ‘Origin’ that served as the primary catalyst, in its address of an evolutionary theory for ALL species of life. His following work’ The Descent of Man’ would function, to some degree, to spell out the obvious with an in-depth application to man. This discussion will explore the unorthodox challenge that 'Origin' represented to both the literal meaning of The Bible and the authority of the church itself. The main aim of this discussion will be to map the emergent divide in a theological sense but to also consider the wider ideological context of science versus religion that manifests at the heart of this debate.

This will be divided into two sections:

Firstly with a synopsis of the ‘Origin of Species’ within the comon context of naturtal theology which will assess the inherent biblical and theological implications it posed. The second section will consider the debate within a wider context and consider the dominant context of science versus religion that can be seen to manifest around this period.

In the early part of the Nineteenth Century and for hundreds of years before, Science and Christianity had been united within the common context of Natural Theology. Within this framework, mankind’s relationship with God and Nature were believed to be exclusive. The first chapter of Genesis, ‘So God created man in his own image…..and said unto them….to have dominion over every living thing ’ could in this light, be interpreted as establishing a celestial hierarchy that placed man above every other living creature and with God as the Divine Creator. This can be traced back to the medieval belief in ‘The Great Chain of Being’. This argument for design was a key philosophy embraced by William Paley (1743-1805) and provided one of the chief philosophical arguments used at that time for the existence of God. His work would focus on the inherent goodness of life and the wonder of the world and the animal kingdom with reference to design asserting that ‘No animal, for instance, can have contrived its own limbs and senses: can have been author to itself of the design with which they were constructed”. An analogy that Paley used, illustrates the simplicity of this approach., where, walking down a country lane and happening upon a stone and a watch. Within the context of Natural theology,, through the mechanism of design, this was interpreted as evidence of divine creation. Therefore, if the ‘watch must have had a maker who comprehended its construction, and designed its use’ then so too must life in all its splendour, be inferred to also have a designer. This teolgical reasoning, although basic and arguably banal was perfectly feasible and was embraced across Victorian society from the rich to the poor. It is illustrative of the nature of the relationship between science and religion at this time, where the authority of science was used to support theology and existed within a harmonious relationship. At this point, just as science gave credence to the existence of a deity, so too in a diluted sense, did religion lend weight to the burgeoning field of science. Diluted, in the sense however, that as much as it may be fair to say that science of Natural Theology, was in a basic form, integrated within religion, it is important to note that in this underdeveloped state it was clearly subservient in the way it was ‘used’ to accommodate Christianity In this role, science was clearly in its infancy and not yet gathered either the validation or momentum to assert itself fully. So how is this partnership or playing field transformed?

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

This is a preview of the whole essay

When Darwin published ‘The Origin of Species’ in 1859. It was the first time a evolutionary theory had been proposed that directly challenged theology with a complete, scientific and empirically validated argument. His work could, in part, be traced back to Malthus’s metaphor of the struggle for existence, as much to the evolutionary theory of Buffon and Lamarck. However, unlike his predecessors Dawrin work would not be so easily ignored. ‘The Origin of Species’ would show that an animal, or specifically a species could in fact be an ‘author to itself’, in contradiction to Paleys assertions. He developed the theory of evolution by means of natural selection and that species, in nature, evolve through a ceaseless competition with one another. This was the doctrine of survival of the fittest,a theory that stated that all organisms throughout all time ‘by which living and extinct beings are united by complex, radiating, circuitous lines of affinities into one grand system”Origin p-456).

Thi implication for the argument of design was monumental. It identifies a ‘grand sytem’ that is purely naturalistic’ (Oldroyd p247) in that it treats all living things with the same regard. In this evolutionary theory, man is reduced to an animal, albeit possessing a superior intellect, but essentially having evolved in the same way, from the same original matter. Here, it is the system itself which unites all living and dead beings, and not God himself. There is no designer mentioned. It would become clear that natural theology’s use of design was a dangerous concept in this light. As many orthodox theologians had maintained this was “the beginning of the steep and slippery road to atheism” (Oldroyd ) who believed it to be an extremely subversive approach. They believed that replacing the emphasis of a personal relationship with God with that of an intellectual approach was an inherently dangerous deviation , in that “if one placed all reliance on a rational argument such as the argument from Design, and if subsequently that argument were found wanting in some respect, then all religion would be lost”.(Oldroyd-p62)

This forms the basic contradiction of Natural Theology, and by virtue , of Christianity itself . But why is this the case? It is possible to reconcile Darwinism with design to some extent. If an individual believed in design, it is reasonable to suggest, that after ‘Origin’ they still could do. Therefore, the argument would be that God had created all life in the moment of Creation, and that through this gradual process of design, that of evolution, his grand system was being executed. This is not something that Darwin discouraged as there is plenty of room within natural selection that could indicate some kind of divine purpose . In this way, as nature can be seen to be acting out an evolutionary movement towards perfection, so too could the natural progression of man, within natural selection, also be seen as part of Gods will. Such an interpretation of Origin was offered by Herbert Spencer who believed you could synthesise evolution with Christian beliefs. He disapproved of the idea that Origin represented a division or ‘Hobsons Choice’ for religious ideas and believed that it was “ infused with the social values so beloved of middle class Victorians” He coined the expression “survival of the fittest”. However, there are problems with such a reading.This interpretation clearly implies a divinity that has mans best interests at heart. In this approach God is thought of as benevolent, as he cares about his creatures and does not wish them to suffer. This can be seen as one of the key foundations upon which Christianity rests. This is in stark comparison to Darwins world. In ‘Philosophical dilemmas’ Routledge 1988, Hospers argues, that “in the face of belief in the evolutionary process, there is a continuous and endless struggle for strife, pain and death.where life is a struggle for existence, in which many species die out and every individual inevitably dies”( Hospers-p307)

This philosophical approach, exposes a key critique of the designer hypothesis and one of the main reasons why Natural Theology was discredited so easily. Namely, that if there is a God, or a Designer, then why does he inflict this suffering on the individual. The Bible teaches us that our physical lives are a test to be endured and that when we die our souls will move on to a better place. This is the bed rock of Christianity and of dogma itself. i.e if you are good of heart, obedient and devout during your life then you will be rewarded in the after life. However, by removing this idea of a benevolent designer as Origin surely did, then the implications are that we are alone in a world, as individuals, who suffer and then die for the sake of the species rather than for any spiritual reward. In such a construct, the only alternative is that God is either malevolent Himself which is for obvious reasons unacceptable.

The biblical inconsistancies that Darwin is famous for were not unique to this period alone.. The birth of literal criticism in Protestant Germany was a major force in the emergence of such analysis and were already in circulation. To some extent, biblical innacuracies could be traced back to theories of Copernicus and Galileo, where undoubtedly, the revision of physics and astronomy had offered an explanation of the ‘heavens’ that contradicted that of scripture. The problem with looking at to biblical inconsistences is that it creates too black and white a picture. One of the most controversial issues, centred on the Victorian view of the age of the world. To accommodate Darwins theory required a vast period of time, that could not be reconciled with the King James Bibles, official date of Creation , 4004 B.C.

In even admitting that one passage were incorrect, implied that all of the Bible may be false. Whether or not the Holy Book is a divine artefact or a weapon of social control, in this case is to some degree irrelevant, as it represented a unprecedented threat to both. This can be seen as a direct confrontation that points towards an irreconcilable divide in that we are ‘hijacked by two extremist positions” ( Davies p 56). In this way one can either believe in evolution or that the world was created on the 23rd October 4004 B.C. This is the Hobsons choice that Spencer spoke of. i.e no choice at all.

In conclusion, it may have been possible to be a Darwinist and a Christian within the Nineteenth Century, as a matter of faith. As the field of science expanded, the two beliefs were ripped apart. In this way, within their fundamental spheres they may be considered as being mutually exclusive. As Mike Jay notes in ‘1900 The Fin-de-seicle Reader’ “the struggle between science and other systems of knowledge was at the core of the nineteenth century cultural drama. For the scientist, humanity had to grow up and accept certain truths. First, that God did not exist. Second, that science meant we could now understand natural laws correctly. And third, that it was the task of the scientist to assume the responsibility of putting these truths into a practical effect within human society”

Bibliography

D.R.OLDROYD ‘Darwinian Impacts’ Open University 1980

APPIGNANESI ‘Postmodernism and Big Science’ Icon Books 2002

HOSPERS ‘An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis’ Routledge 1988

JAY.M, NEVE.M ‘1900-Fin-de-seicle-a reader’ Penguin 1999